Search Results

Search found 1638 results on 66 pages for 'multithreading'.

Page 47/66 | < Previous Page | 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54  | Next Page >

  • Multiple things at once (Threads?)

    - by Jonathan
    All, What is a really simple way of having a program do more than one thing at once, even if the computer does not necessarily have multiple 'cores'. Can I do this by creating more than one Thread? My goal is to be able to have two computers networked (through Sockets) to respond to each-other's requests, while my program will at the same time be able to be managing a UI. I want the server to potentially handle more than one client at the same time as well. My understanding is that the communication is done with BufferedReader.readLine() and PrintWriter.println(). My problem is that I want the server to be waiting on multiple readLine() requests, and also be doing other things. How do I handle this? Many thanks, Jonathan

    Read the article

  • Thread-safe blocking queue implementation on .NET

    - by Shrike
    Hello. I'm looking for an implementation of thread-safe blocking queue for .NET. By "thread-safe blocking queue" I mean: - thread-safe access to a queue where Dequeue method call blocks a thread untill other thread puts (Enqueue) some value. By the moment I'v found this one: http://www.eggheadcafe.com/articles/20060414.asp (But it's for .NET 1.1). Could someone comment/criticize correctness of this implementation. Or suggest some another one. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Thread Question

    - by Polaris
    I have method which create background thread to make some action. In this background thread I create object. But this object while creating in runtime give me an exception : The calling thread must be STA, because many UI components require this. I know that I must use Dispatcher to make reflect something to UI. But in this case I just create an object and dont iteract with UI. This is my code: public void SomeMethod() { BackgroundWorker worker = new BackgroundWorker(); worker.DoWork += new DoWorkEventHandler(Background_Method); worker.RunWorkerAsync(); } void Background_Method(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e) { TreeView tv = new TreeView(); } How can I create objects in background thread? I use WPF application

    Read the article

  • boost thread pool

    - by Dtag
    I need a threadpool for my application, and I'd like to rely on standard (C++11 or boost) stuff as much as possible. I realize there is an unofficial(!) boost thread pool class, which basically solves what I need, however I'd rather avoid it because it is not in the boost library itself -- why is it still not in the core library after so many years? In some posts on this page and elsewhere, people suggested using boost::asio to achieve a threadpool like behavior. At first sight, that looked like what I wanted to do, however I found out that all implementations I have seen have no means to join on the currently active tasks, which makes it useless for my application. To perform a join, they send stop signal to all the threads and subsequently join them. However, that completely nullifies the advantage of threadpools in my use case, because that makes new tasks require the creation of a new thread. What I want to do is: ThreadPool pool(4); for (...) { for (int i=0;i<something;i++) pool.pushTask(...); pool.join(); // do something with the results } Can anyone suggest a solution (except for using the existing unofficial thread pool on sourceforge)? Is there anything in C++11 or core boost that can help me here? Thanks a lot

    Read the article

  • How to implement a multi-threaded asynchronous operation?

    - by drowneath
    Here's how my current approach looks like: // Somewhere in a UI class // Called when a button called "Start" clicked MyWindow::OnStartClicked(Event &sender) { _thread = new boost::thread(boost::bind(&MyWindow::WorkToDo, this)); } MyWindow::WorkToDo() { for(int i = 1; i < 10000000; i++) { int percentage = (int)((float)i / 100000000.f); _progressBar->SetValue(percentage); _statusText->SetText("Working... %d%%", percentage); printf("Pretend to do something useful...\n"); } } // Called on every frame MyWindow::OnUpdate() { if(_thread != 0 && _thread->timed_join(boost::posix_time::seconds(0)) { _progressBar->SetValue(100); _statusText->SetText("Completed!"); delete _thread; _thread = 0; } } But I'm afraid this is far from safe since I keep getting unhandled exception at the end of the program execution. I basically want to separate a heavy task into another thread without blocking the GUI part.

    Read the article

  • How are the concepts of process and threads implementated in Linux kernel?

    - by Shan
    Can any one explain how are the concepts of process and threads implemented in Linux kernel ? I am looking for an intuitive explanation with some C snippets ( and important data structures) that clearly distinguishes between the two. I am just looking for the key implementation ideas I should get hold off. Essentially, I want to understand them and implement something similar in an embedded target (not supporte by any OS) in C language.

    Read the article

  • Repeated host lookups failing in urllib2

    - by reve_etrange
    I have code which issues many HTTP GET requests using Python's urllib2, in several threads, writing the responses into files (one per thread). During execution, it looks like many of the host lookups fail (causing a name or service unknown error, see appended error log for an example). Is this due to a flaky DNS service? Is it bad practice to rely on DNS caching, if the host name isn't changing? I.e. should a single lookup's result be passed into the urlopen? Exception in thread Thread-16: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/python2.6/threading.py", line 532, in __bootstrap_inner self.run() File "/home/da/local/bin/ThreadedDownloader.py", line 61, in run page = urllib2.urlopen(url) # get the page File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 126, in urlopen return _opener.open(url, data, timeout) File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 391, in open response = self._open(req, data) File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 409, in _open '_open', req) File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 369, in _call_chain result = func(*args) File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 1170, in http_open return self.do_open(httplib.HTTPConnection, req) File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 1145, in do_open raise URLError(err) URLError: <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>

    Read the article

  • Unload event for the default AppDomain?

    - by Zor
    Hi, I need to have an event fired whenever any AppDomain unloads - including the default one of the process. The problem with AppDomain.DomainUnload is that it only fires for non-default AppDomains. Furthermore, AppDomain.ProcessExit has limited execution time, which I cannot rely on. Any suggestions as to how I can achieve this would be greatly appreciated! (Alternatively, having an event fired when a background thread (Thread.IsBackground == True) works too.) Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • C++0x thread interruption

    - by Nicola Bonelli
    According to the C++0x final draft, there's no way to request a thread to terminate. That said, if required we need to implement a do-it-yourself solution. In your opinion, what's the best solution? Designing your own cooperative 'interruption mechanism' or going native?

    Read the article

  • Python Terminated Thread Cannot Restart

    - by Mel Kaye
    Hello, I have a thread that gets executed when some action occurs. Given the logic of the program, the thread cannot possibly be started while another instance of it is still running. Yet when I call it a second time, I get a "RuntimeError: thread already started" error. I added a check to see if it is actually alive using the Thread.is_alive() function, and it is actually dead. What am I doing wrong? I can provide more details as are needed.

    Read the article

  • How do I wait for all other threads to finish their tasks?

    - by Mike
    I have several threads consuming tasks from a queue using something similar to the code below. The problem is that there is one type of task which cannot run while any other tasks are being processed. Here is what I have: while (true) // Threaded code { while (true) { lock(locker) { if (close_thread) return; task = GetNextTask(); // Get the next task from the queue } if (task != null) break; wh.WaitOne(); // Wait until a task is added to the queue } task.Run(); } And this is kind of what I need: while (true) { while (true) { lock(locker) { if (close_thread) return; if (disable_new_tasks) { task = null; } else { task = GetNextTask(); } } if (task != null) break; wh.WaitOne(); } if(!task.IsThreadSafe()) { // I would set this to false inside task.Run() at // the end of the non-thread safe task disable_new_tasks = true; Wait_for_all_threads_to_finish_their_current_tasks(); } task.Run(); } The problem is I don't know how to achive this without creating a mess.

    Read the article

  • A generic C++ library that provides QtConcurrent functionality?

    - by Lucas
    QtConcurrent is awesome. I'll let the Qt docs speak for themselves: QtConcurrent includes functional programming style APIs for parallel list processing, including a MapReduce and FilterReduce implementation for shared-memory (non-distributed) systems, and classes for managing asynchronous computations in GUI applications. For instance, you give QtConcurrent::map() an iterable sequence and a function that accepts items of the type stored in the sequence, and that function is applied to all the items in the collection. This is done in a multi-threaded manner, with a thread pool equal to the number of logical CPU's on the system. There are plenty of other function in QtConcurrent, like filter(), filteredReduced() etc. The standard CompSci map/reduce functions and the like. I'm totally in love with this, but I'm starting work on an OSS project that will not be using the Qt framework. It's a library, and I don't want to force others to depend on such a large framework like Qt. I'm trying to keep external dependencies to a minimum (it's the decent thing to do). I'm looking for a generic C++ framework that provides me with the same/similar high-level primitives that QtConcurrent does. AFAIK boost has nothing like this (I may be wrong though). boost::thread is very low-level compared to what I'm looking for. I know C# has something very similar with their Parallel Extensions so I know this isn't a Qt-only idea. What do you suggest I use?

    Read the article

  • Perl TCP Server handling multiple Client connections

    - by Matt
    I'll preface this by saying I have minimal experience with both Perl and Socket programming, so I appreciate any help I can get. I have a TCP Server which needs to handle multiple Client connections simultaneously and be able to receive data from any one of the Clients at any time and also be able to send data back to the Clients based on information it's received. For example, Client1 and Client2 connect to my Server. Client2 sends "Ready", the server interprets that and sends "Go" to Client1. The following is what I have written so far: my $sock = new IO::Socket::INET { LocalHost => $host, // defined earlier in code LocalPort => $port, // defined earlier in code Proto => 'tcp', Listen => SOMAXCONN, Reuse => 1, }; die "Could not create socket $!\n" unless $sock; while ( my ($new_sock,$c_addr) = $sock->accept() ) { my ($client_port, $c_ip) = sockaddr_in($c_addr); my $client_ipnum = inet_ntoa($c_ip); my $client_host = ""; my @threads; print "got a connection from $client_host", "[$client_ipnum]\n"; my $command; my $data; while ($data = <$new_sock>) { push @threads, async \&Execute, $data; } } sub Execute { my ($command) = @_; // if($command) = "test" { // send "go" to socket1 print "Executing command: $command\n"; system($command); } I know both of my while loops will be blocking and I need a way to implement my accept command as a thread, but I'm not sure the proper way of writing it.

    Read the article

  • Using locks inside a loop

    - by Xaqron
    // Member Variable private readonly object _syncLock = new object(); // Now inside a static method foreach (var lazyObject in plugins) { if ((string)lazyObject.Metadata["key"] = "something") { lock (_syncLock) { if (!lazyObject.IsValueCreated) lazyObject.value.DoSomething(); } return lazyObject.value; } } Here I need synchronized access per loop. There are many threads iterating this loop and based on the key they are looking for, a lazy instance is created and returned. lazyObject should not be created more that one time. Although Lazy class is for doing so and despite of the used lock, under high threading I have more than one instance created (I track this with a Interlocked.Increment on a volatile shared int and log it somewhere). The problem is I don't have access to definition of Lazy and MEF defines how the Lazy class create objects. My questions: 1) Why the lock doesn't work ? 2) Should I use an array of locks instead of one lock for performance improvement ?

    Read the article

  • Processes Allocation in .Net

    - by mayap
    I'm writing some program which should perform calculations concurrently according to inputs which reach the system all the time. I'm considering 2 approaches to allocate "calculation" processes: Allocating processes in the system initialization, insert the ids to Processes table, and each time I want to perform calculation, I will check in the table which process is free. The questions: can I be sure that those processes are only for my use and that the operating system doesn't use them? Not allocating processes in advance. Each time when calculation should be done ask the operating system for free process. I need to know the following inputs from a "calculation" process: When calculation is finished and also if it succeeded or failed If a processes has failed I need to assign the calculation to another process Thanks in advance. Any help would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Threading Problems in ActionScript 2.0?

    - by yar
    Is it possible to have concurrency problems (thread competition) in an onEnterFrame method in ActionScript 2.0? I have written this cheesy code as a guard: if (!busy) { // I suspect some threading problems: is that even possible in flash busy = true; movePanels(); busy = false; } but this is no assurance against thread competition. If so, how can I do a basic semaphore/lock? Note: I suspect threading problems in my app, but if they're impossible, I'll check my code differently.

    Read the article

  • Understanding java's native threads and the jvm

    - by Moev4
    I understand that the jvm is itself an application that turns the bytecode of the java executable into native machine code, but when using native threads I have some questions that I just cannot seem to answer. Does every thread create their own instance of the jvm to handle their particular execution? If not then does the jvm have to have some way to schedule which thread it will handle next, if so wouldn't this render the multi-threaded nature of java useless since only one thread can be ran at a time?

    Read the article

  • When Should I Use Threads?

    - by cam
    As far as I'm concerned, the ideal amount of threads is 3: one for the UI, one for CPU resources, and one for IO resources. But I'm probably wrong. I'm just getting introduced to them, but I've always used one for the UI and one for everything else. When should I use threads and how? How do I know if I should be using them?

    Read the article

  • Does the managed main UI thread stay on the same (unmanaged) Operation System thread?

    - by Daniel Rose
    I am creating a managed WPF UI front-end to a legacy Win32-application. The WPF front-end is the executable; as part of its startup routines I start the legacy app as a DLL in a second thread. Any UI-operation (including CreateWindowsEx, etc.) by the legacy app is invoked back on the main UI-thread. As part of the shutdown process of the app I want to clean up properly. Among other things, I want to call DestroyWindow on all unmanaged windows, so they can properly clean themselves up. Thus, during shutdown I use EnumWindows to try to find all my unmanaged windows. Then I call DestroyWindow one the list I generate. These run on the main UI-thread. After this background knowledge, on to my actual question: In the enumeration procedure of EnumWindows, I have to check if one of the returned top-level windows is one of my unmanaged windows. I do this by calling GetWindowThreadProcessId to get the process id and thread id of the window's creator. I can compare the process id with Process.GetCurrentProcess().Id to check if my app created it. For additional security, I also want to see if my main UI-thread created the window. However, the returned thread id is the OS's ThreadId (which is different than the managed thread id). As explained in this question, the CLR reserves the right to re-schedule the managed thread to different OS threads. Can I rely on the CLR to be "smart enough" to never do this for the main UI thread (due to thread-affinity of the UI)? Then I could call GetCurrentThreadId to get the main UI-thread's unmanaged thread id for comparison.

    Read the article

  • Why wait should always be in synchronized block

    - by diy
    Hi gents, We all know that in order to invoke Object.wait() , this call must be placed in synchronized block,otherwise,IllegalMonitorStateException is thrown.But what's the reason for making this restriction?I know that wait() releases the monitor, but why do we need to explicitly acquire the monitor by making particular block synchronized and then release the monitor by calling wait() ? What is the potential damage if it was possible to invoke wait() outside synch block, retaining it's semantics - suspending the caller thread ? Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Java Thread - Synchronization issue

    - by Yatendra Goel
    From Sun's tutorial: Synchronized methods enable a simple strategy for preventing thread interference and memory consistency errors: if an object is visible to more than one thread, all reads or writes to that object's variables are done through synchronized methods. (An important exception: final fields, which cannot be modified after the object is constructed, can be safely read through non-synchronized methods, once the object is constructed) This strategy is effective, but can present problems with liveness, as we'll see later in this lesson. Q1. Is the above statements mean that if an object of a class is going to be shared among multiple threads, then all instance methods of that class (except getters of final fields) should be made synchronized, since instance methods process instance variables?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54  | Next Page >